TIFF: Supergirl checks out HICK and says it is a weird, profoundly disturbing movie...

Hey folks, Harry here... Here's a reader review from Supergirl of a very intense sounding movie starring the young talent, Chloe Moretz and takes us to even more disturbing corners than she has previously explored. Primarily being sexual. This is the first word I've heard on this one - there's spoilers in the second half of the review, so watch out. Really enjoying Toronto, though I haven't had the opportunity to check much of anything out. But Copernicus and Anton Sirius are checking out a ton of stuff - and hopefully more of you AICN readers that are attending the fest will continue to send us some word on some of what you're seeing... There's too much up here to see for any site to really try to cover it all. So let's hear from ya. Here's Supergirl on HICK:

Hi Harry, Supergirl here.

HICK premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival today, the new film starring Chloe Grace Moretz - my top choice to play yours truly in the inevitable movie adaptation of my life and times, by the way. Carol Ferris - er, Blake Lively - is also in the film, so you know I'm gonna be down for a cross-America road movie starring Hit Girl and Star Sapphire. Lotta pink in that prospective picture - what could possibly go wrong?

Well quite a lot apparently. This is one confused, and ultimately very ugly, movie. I'm going to do my best to keep the top half of my thoughts on the film non-spoiler, but I have to get into some endgame details towards the bottom half of the review to really underline a point. I'll warn.

HICK is about a 13-year-old girl from Nebraska named Luli, who, on her thirteen birthday, correctly assesses that she is stuck in a go-nowhere life, and hits the road to head for Vegas. She trades on the rising heat of her sexuality to bum rides, and along the way she gets mixed up with a twentysomething cowboy/drifter played by Eddie Redmayne, and a beautiful strawberry lady named Glenda, played by Lively.

From the outset, this movie's sexual politics are reeeeaallllly eerie and confusing. Let's reiterate the starting line here: this is a movie about a 13-year-old girl, but the film is completely preoccupied with her beauty and sexuality to the point of being immediately creepy. Don't get me wrong: 13-year-olds have sexualities too. But the mouth-feel of HICK is not unlike the photographic work of a guy who shows up at a topless beach to snap digital photos of the pretty girls. There's a leering pretense to the proceedings from the moment we spend an entire early scene watching Moretz wander around in frilly rainbow underpants, talking to an adult man. It only gets worse as the threat of sexual violence is introduced, repeatedly, into the scenario.

If they wanted to sell me on Luli as a down-on-her-luck southern girl out on the open road, they should have backed off on the glam sexpot shots of Moretz, who has an unbelievably perfect cascade of blonde hair in every single frame of the story, even the scene where she - literally - wakes up after falling asleep in a ditch. This same scene introduces Lively's character - brought into the movie pissing while standing up, which immediately attracts her to Luli for all the obvious reasons. Lively plays a more lived-in role here, but Moretz/Luli is a pure jailbait fantasy - and what makes HICK really disconcerting is that no one ever really seems to question it.

The film retains a happy-go-lucky tone which is seriously, seriously misjudged. It leads the audience in the wrong direction.

AND HERE WITH THE SPOILERS.

Towards the end of the picture, HICK decides to go the full HOUNDDOG on another up-and-coming blonde tween actress, and sees Luli finally fall afoul of a rape. Because, you know, what the world needed was another Dakota Fanning Rape Movie. The rape is, as they say, "tastefully done." But it's still a rape. This child is dragged into a field and raped, and then wakes up on a bed tied down, and is told that she will remain bound whenever her captor is not around.

And. The. Audience. Laughed.

This is how completely HICK misjudged its tone. I don't blame the audience, though they're a sack of douchebags for not cottoning to the reality of what they were watching far sooner. But HICK absolutely leads them down this dark garden path by playing itself off as a charming and winsome bildungsroman about a young teenager finding herself, while simultaneously taking the entire frame to profoundly dark, and morally reprehensible, places.

Look: I was a big defender of KICK-ASS. I think that movie is terrific. I have read what the dissenting critics have said [cough]Ebert[cough] about that film's subjecting Moretz to incredible physical violence. But. KICK-ASS is, in its every single frame, a fully-avowed fantasy. It never pretends to be anything else; it's even photographed identically to SPIDER-MAN to underline the point!

HICK, meanwhile, looks and feels like JUNO right up till the kid is dragged into the cornfield by the 26-year-old cowboy who has been romantically pursuing her through the whole movie. Read that again: a will-they / won't-they "romance" has been teased throughout HICK between Moretz and Redmayne's cowboy character. And yet, at no point in the film, does anyone suggest that this relationship might be a bad idea because the cowboy is literally double the age of the underage girl. They just think he's a bad seed.

What a weird, profoundly disturbing movie HICK is - and not, I think, on purpose. Just because of how clearly misguided its makers were.

First of all, South Park may be very clever but it isn't always right. And that kind of black-and-white thinking is where they often slip into Wrongsville. I understand the application to this example because it's a "Moretz as ultraviolent is okay vs Moretz as ultrasexual is not okay" kind of deal. However, Kick-Ass and Moretz as Hit Girl are fantasy characters in a fantasy situation. That's not the tone this reviewer gave off from this film. She implies that the tone is wistfully romantic/dramatic. Did the reviewer miss the overt fantasy? Maybe, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
Second, Kick-Ass and Hit Girl are examples of parody. Hit Girl's ultraviolent behavior, coupled with her age, are meant to make a comedic point about the ridiculousness of comic books and the fetishization of youth (particularly young women) in the medium. It doesn't sound like the Moretz character in Hick is meant to achieve the same purpose. And whereas comic books and superhero movies are ripe ground for parody, I don't see teenage wanderlust dramas as being all that ripe. Maybe they are, and maybe this film is an effort to plumb that subgenre, but if that's the case then the reviewer's thoughts still apply. If it was meant to be parody, it failed because the tone was inconsistent.
The further along Moretz gets in her career, the more concerned I get for her. It seems like because she's comfortable with a certain amount of mature content, she's pushed into doing questionable material. Fanning went through a bit of this, too. Just because these girls act mature and can handle risque dialogue and character action doesn't mean that every frigging script that comes to their agent HAS to contain mature content. Here's a thought: cast these GOOD child actresses in movies that otherwise would use Precocious Child Non-Actor #2458.

The entire purpose of such stuff is that said starlet keeps getting 'light' material, and there simply isn't a lot of that. Sure, there are roles, but they pale in comparison to the more late-teen 'dark' roles they'd like to be considered for, and ultimately mainstream dramas. So after having let a director 'rape' her on-screen, if anybody asks questions.. this movie can be pointed to that she's willing and capable of doing the 'heavy' stuff. Jodie Foster really plowed the territory as an underage hooker in Taxi Driver.
Then Fanning went with Hound Dog, Jennifer Lawrence spread her legs unwillingly for The Poker House, now Moretz gets taken out to the cornfield with Hick.
I fully expect here shortly that Miley Cyrus will be in a film as an underage Hick being done by a hounddog in a poker house. What better way to break out of the paperlight romcom/voiceover work she's pigeonholed in.
Cause thats how Hollywood rolls!~

No, it's not closed-minded to say there is an overt sexualization and objectification of adolescent girls in Hollywood. Just ask Jodie Foster. Or Natalie Portman. She was introduced to the world as a 12-year-old temptress that, after being rescued by Leon, is seen waking up in bed next to him, wearing a pair of his boxers. Are we simply supposed to pretend that, after he rescued Mathilda, Leon totally didn't have sex with a twelve-year-old? You can enjoy a movie like Leon the Professional, but you also have to recognize the film for what it is: A pedophile's dream. Like Hard Candy which, I felt, was a completely unnecessary movie. But hey, it got nubile Ellen Page to covort as a 14-year-old in a training bra. That movie's poster (little Ellen Page in a red hoodie standing in a giant bear trap) is a perfect picture of the place of young girls in Hollywood. It didn't take long to get Dakota Fanning in lingerie and kissing Kristen Stewart, nor do I imagine it will be long before we see Elle Fanning and Hailee Steinfeld being turned into eye-candy; I can already picture the sleazy Hollywood producer salivating at the chance to make it happen. Anyone else find it interesting that, in these movies, it's always the underrage girl making the moves on the older man? Pure fantasy. But it is what it is -- some of it is dark art that provokes deep thought or visceral reaction, some of it is outright nihilistic convention-crushing, and, from the sounds of HICK, some of it is just some filmmaker's wet dream.

It's an adaptation of a book which is deliberately productive to make the wallet leap from your fattening hands to their bulking wallets. And guess who made the most of your beloved dollars?
Chloe Moretz.

Filmmaker is referencing Oz. Girl from midwest (Nebraska instead of Kansas). Long focus on rainbow underpants. A female intervening character named Glenda (Glinda). I'm willing to bet if I ever watch this I'll spot a hundred other more ham-fisted references.

From what I understand (and this comes from someone who has worked on two of her films), Chloe Moretz has a real stage brother problem. Her mom is fine, but her failed-actor brother Trevor controls each and every decision she makes.

Really what was the point to tell us that you LIKE KickAss???????????????
Is that supposed to tell us that you aren't judgemental about this movie content?
How the hell does relating KickAss to this movie just because the actress was in makes any sense?!?!
Fuck, reviewing isn't for everyone!

I think it almost deviant to have these young people take questionable subject matters as roles!
Just this week we had a 3 yr old dress(by her mom) as the hooker character from Pretty Woman on a reality show!
The sexualization of kids have been going on for awhile but once was hidden is slowly becoming public.
Pervs and famewhore who exploits kids/teens are getting bolder and that shit needs to stop!
Chloe an ok actress(she not great) but her guardian and agent need to pull back on these types of roles.
Just because these kids give good interviews doesn't make them mature and able to handle such subject matters.
This was an exploited push by Chloe handlers to thrust her further into the spotlight and sell her as a legit 'young' actress who can handle such roles!
I get why the audience laff and I'm willing to be most of it was nervousness.
There was no need for Chloe(or any kid) to be cast in this role. This was the exec producer getting his/her jollies off because they know no one in hell will go see this shit!

Just make a film that's apologetic about pedophilia and you're automatically a genius. That's the mentality of Hollywood! The Woodsman, Hounddog, Trust, Megan is Missing, Lovely Bones, now this and Michael, both of which are playing the same festival by the way. It's a symptom of a sick Hollywood, but it's not a new symptom to hear 99% of child actors tell it! Stop feeding their sinful vices by watching these thinly veiled excuses for putting kids in sexual situations.

13 year old in a sex film.
As a culture, we are so done.
Blue Lagoon
Lolita
Pretty Baby
I guess we've been done for a long time.
However, 13 has been approximately the age of procreation for 10,000 years. What is it about Western Civ that finds that so wrong? (Well, we are smarter than everyone else that ever lived, I suppose).

It gave a great assessment, addressed issues with no spoilers, then gave an example of a similarly adult-themed film with the same actress.
The point of Supergirl giving her opinion is so that haters would criticize her review and say things like "I bet u hated Kick-ass too you self-centered bitch!"...
The spoiler area was also great, not doing into the exact ending but further explaining the odd territory the film goes into.
I have zero intention of seeing this, mostly because of the sexuality of it.
Having said that IF I was 13/14/15 years old, maybe even 16...I'd have a huge crush on her, but now my morals tell me she's hideous.

Is present everywhere but that doesn't mean it has to be A) In a movie people pay to see and B) Displayed in such a disturbing manner.
Having a 13 year old want to be sexy and be attracted to someone older screams indie film, and would be fine if it wasn't in a rape/lesbian/raw display.
Yes people throughout history have gotten married and had sex and did a lot of things at 13, but it's not the greatest image in a movie like this..
Example: A New World...Colin Farell falls in love with an Indian played by a very underage girl (forgot her name)...the movie has some of the most artistic "falling in love" moments, staring at each other, hair being pushed away from their faces, intimate moments...and none of us complained because of the manner in which the scenes were shown...
I'm all for showing the truth behind young sexual lives in a film, a lot of them do have sex and drink and smoke and do drugs...but there are some things an audience just shouldn't be shown.

They seemed boring or I knew the subject matter.
I'm not interested in seeing kids having sex amongst themselves or being raped in films.
If I wanna see sex in movies I go to my vast porn collection(oh yeah!!!) of adult women with phat asses and big tits!
Little kids being sexualized on film or on reality show is something I could never find entertaining.

The audience from the premiere of HICK did not laugh at the rape scene or at Moretz being tied up. They laughed at the Eddie Redmayne swearing up and down that he would NEVER tie her up again...unless he's gone.
It was an absurdly funny moment during a movie that volleys between charming, funny and dramatic.
Get your facts straight before publishing your blogs.

a romantic interest between a younger girl looking for something that's missing in her life and an older guy, also missing something in his, can be done tastefully...
Look at Leon the Professional....no doubt there was a subtle love story in there with Portman, but it was done in such a way where nothing happens...the story is there, so is the emotion and the development between the two characters, but nothing was ever explicitly shown.
As far as most indie films go however, i can't stand them, they all have the same music, same really bored with life characters, etc...just can't get into them at all.
They could've really used Chloe's ability to be strong and yet innocent in a great way..Let Me In she showed a part of that in a fantastic way..if it was about two different aged people connecting on an emotional level it's all good...but not by her AND the director showcasing an underage girl as being overtly sexual....and rape, unless in a true story, is completely unneeded in a film

I keep hearing this over and over. And I think it comes down to the individual taste.
What I saw wasn't a love story. It was a guy who saw the kid as his daughter. And he wanted her to live. And through her he was experiencing life other than being a hitman.
Sometimes it just that simple.

I'm pretty sure there's a scene with him in her underwear or very little clothes and he's trying not to stare at her but does...
Again...kinda creepy but in a sad way....and like you said, it's debatable to the daughter angle---debatable being the key word...there's nothing "up for interpretation" when you've got a little kid wanting to have sex and being raped later...the words little kid and rape should instantly make every moral person shiver inside and feel gross for just reading the words...idc if it's a documentary on underage sex trades in Indonesia, people should scatter and never look back.

Did someone actually call 'Hard Candy' a "pedophile's dream". Do people actually see the movies they talk about anymore? If anything, I'd call Hard Candy a Pedophile's nightmare. It's almost like these people just read the movie sleeves and think they really know what the movie is like. Just like the dumb bastards that say they don't like 'Fight Club' because it's "just a bunch of guys beating each other up".

ya I decided not to comment on that lol...she owned in that film and there was nothing about that any pedophile wants...considering what f-ing happens to the guy in the movie...sigh...
And I just didn't care for fight club, it was very gritty/disturbing in some ways and I just didn't care for the style it was shot in...thought it was a great twist and great acting but a few times watching it was enough for me...and ur right, the movie had nothing to do with "just a bunch of guys beating each other up"

I completely respect someone's right to dislike the movie, just, you know, based on real reasons (such as yours), not preconceptions. I hate it when people comment on something they know nothing about and their ignorance of the subject shines through.
Movies like 'Hard Candy' are guaranteed to be hated by a lot of people, but it's funny that this guy uses it in a context that is the exact opposite of what the movie actually was, lol.

I've seen and fell for some pretty tomboys in real life(my buddy second cousin) and films(Tatum O' Neal) when I was younger.
But Ellen just comes off sorta manly. Even in Whip It she just seemed like one of the guys. Not saying she lesbo just the way she carries herself, IMO.
vicmackey1268, sure Leon(The Professional) was creep out by Fiona being in her undies and professing her love to him. Most guys would. But I still don't see the guy thinking the same way.
He loved her but it wasn't sexual nor was it the same type she feeling, IMO.
But again everybody seems to view the 'relationship' in that movie differently.

Although I liked Leon cuz Gary Oldman kicks ass in everything...I didn't start thinking Portman was hot until Phantom Menace..speaking of, when she's in her brown shirt going into the store you can see her nipple cuz it's cold....sigh...can't wait for that image in bluray form lol
But your point does make sense...either way, "child", "sex", "rape" are things I don't like put together (not that rape is any better on it's own)
Also I was getting at the fact that a normal relationship based on friendship is much better and would be ok...I didn't mean "attraction" like sexually...I meant it like when I'm hungry I find myself attracted to a piece of glorious deep dish, but I wouldn't screw the deep dish lol

No. The vast majority of 13-year olds have never had sex. Very few of those that have actually experienced sex have ever had 'sex all the time'. People say such trite crap like '13 year-olds have sex all the time' as it plays into their fantasies of pedophilia. Its not bad if the kids are allready rampantly 'doing it' yes? By sexualizing youngsters, it makes their proclivities less perverted.

Chick missed a joke and immediately shit on the audience for laughing at said joke. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to the movie instead of writing a review as you watched it. And in a world where we can watch people get sewn ass to mouth, a flick that sexualizes a teenager without showing her bits is pretty harmless.

I watched Hound Dog on a lark because I wanted to see what the fuss was about. Afterwards I didn't feel like I could get that kind of scum off. Not going to watch that again. If I want a Harmony Korrine movie I'll watch one, aware of the kind of depravity I'm about to see.

When she's prancing around in her "Boltie" outfit, there's no way that you can deem that "manly" or even "little boyish"... especially when she has her way with Rainn Wilson's "Crimson Bolt" protagonist.